P.17 

ff'fhP/ 

Tuesday 

September 30, 1986 

Part IX 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 61 

National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Vinyl Chloride; 

Equipment Leaks of Volatile Hazardous 

Air Pollutants; Final Rule 
PJ6 

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 61 

[AD-FRL-3044-5] 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Vinyl 

Chloride; Equipment Leaks of Volatile 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA proposed 

administrative and clarifying revisions 

to the national emission standard for 

vinyl chloride (VC) on January 9,1985, 

(50 FR 1182). Certain revisions to the 

standard are being promulgated in 

Subpart F through this action and, to a 

minor extent, in Subpart V of 40 CFR 

Part 61. Finally, through this action the 

Agency is denying the petition of the 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC) and the Environmental Defense 

Fund (EDF) which sought 

reconsideration of the EPA's withdrawal 

of the amendments to the VC standard 

which were proposed in 1977. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 30,1986. 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air 

Act, judicial review of the actions taken 

by this notice is available only by filing 

of a petition for review in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia circuit within 60 days of 

today's publication of this rule. Under 

section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act, 

the requirements that are the subject for 

today's notice may not be challenged 

later in civil or criminal proceedings 

brought by EPA to enforce these 

requirements. 

Incorporation by Reference 

The incorporation by reference of certain 

publications in these standards is approved 

by the Director of the Office of the Federal 

Register as of September 30,1986. 

ADDRESSES: Background Information 

Document. The background information 

document (BID) for the promulgated 

standards may be obtained from the 

U.S. EPA Library (MD-35), Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 

telephone number (919) 541-2777. Please 

refer to "Vinyl Chloride Standard: 

Responses to Comments on January 1985 

Proposed Revisions," EPA-450/3-86-

004. The BID contains: (1) A summary of 

all public comments on the proposed 

revisions and the Administrator's 

response to the comments, and (2) a 

summary of the changes made to the 

revised standard since proposal. 

Dockets. A docket, number A-81-21, 

containing information considered by 

EPA in developing of the promulgated 

revisions to the standard for VC, is 

available for public inspection between 

8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, at EPA's Central Docket Section 

(LE-131), West Tower Lobby, Gallery 1, 

401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20460. A reasonable fee may be charged 

for copying. 

FOH FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

For further information concerning the 

enforcement aspects of the promulgated 

revisions, contact Mr. Richard Biondi, 

Compliance Monitoring Branch, 

Stationary Source Compliance Division, 

(EN-341), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, 

DC 20469, telephone number (202) 382-

2826. For further information concerning 

the background technical information 

supporting the promulgated revisions, 

contact Mr. Robert E. Rosensteel, 

Chemicals and Petroleum Branch, 

Emission Standards and Engineering 

Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone 

number (919) 541-5671. For other 

information on the regulation of VC and 

the promulgated revisions, contact Mr. 

Fred Dimmick, Standards Development 

Branch, Emission Standards and 

Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, telephone number (919) 541-5578. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Summary of Revisions to the Standard 

The VC standard was promulgated on 

October 21,1976 (41 FR 46560) and 

applies to plants producing ethylene 

dichloride (EDC) via oxychlorination, 

plant producing VC, and plants 

producing polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or 

other polymers containing VC. These 

plants are subject to a combination of 

performance, equipment and work 

practice requirements at numerous 

points in the manufacturing processes. 

Based on its review of tiie technological 

basis and administrative aspects of the 

original standard, EPA proposed several 

administrative and clarifying revisions 

to the standard on January 9,1985 (50 FR 

1182). The comments received and 

actions taken on these proposed 

revisions are discussed below. 

Requirements for Leak Detection and 

Repair Programs 

As proposed in January 1985, VC is 

being added to the list of substances 

covered by 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart V, 

which contains regulations for leaks 

from certain equipment in volatile 

hazardous air pollutant (VHAP) service. 

Previously, plant owners subject to the 

VC standard were required to prepare 

leak detection and repair plans for each 

VC and PVC manufacturing facility and 

to submit these plans to EPA for review. 

An analysis of the plans submitted 

revealed that these plans varied widely 

from plant to plant. Further, some plans 

were considered to be inadequate and 

ineffective approaches to the control of 

VC leaks. 

The incorporation of Subpart V by the 

standard for VC emissions establishes 

standardized procedures for identifying 

leaks of VC and for taking steps to 

minimize emissions and repair leaks. 

Further, the incorporation of Subpart V 

will also accomplish a standardization 

of the definition of what constitutes a 

leak for routine leak detection. 

However, to avoid unnecessary changes 

to existing plans which are effective in 

detecting and repairing VC leaks, the 

standard contains provisions whereby 

any facility may demonstrate through 

annual (or more frequent, if requested 

by the Administrator) performance tests 

that the percentage of leaking valves 

remains at 2 percent as an alternative to 

following the Subpart V procedures. An 

owner may continue to follow the 

existing leak detection and elimination 

program for that facility for the purpose 

of achieving the 2 percent performance 

limit. However, existing plans are no 

longer required, nor do they necessarily 

meet the promulgated requirements. 

Compliance Test Procedure and Specific 

Opening Loss Limit for PVC Reactors 

Used as Strippers 

The Federal Register notice that 

promulgated the current VC standard 

stated that VC escaping from PVC resin 

that has been stripped in the reactor is 

not intended to be included as part of 

the VC emissions measured under the 

reactor opening loss requirements. For 

nonbulk PVC reactors which are used as 

strippers, however, no method was 

specified to determine what part of the 

VC in the vapor space of the reactor had 

escaped after the stripping was 

completed. Consequently, a method was 

proposed for determining the reactor 

opening loss that accounts for stripping 

in the PVC reactor for use by all 

nonbulk resin producers. After 

considering the comments on this 

proposed revision, EPA decided to 

promulgate the revision. 

Another proposed change in the 

standard affecting PVC reactors used as 

strippers applied to the production of 

bulk PVC resins. Two separate vessels 

are used in bulk resin production, a 

"prepolymerization" vessel and a "postpolymerization" vessel. Under the 

standard promulgated in 1976, both of 

these vessels were subject to the reactor 
P.18 

Federal RegisSeir / Vol. 51, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 34805 

opening loss requirements. However, an 

analysis of the operation of 

prepolymerization vessels revealed that 

these reactors are opened less 

frequendy man other types of reactors, 

and that the determination of gross 

product (required for the calculation of 

reactor opening loss) is impractical. In 

January 1985, EPA proposed to apply the 

equipment opening loss requirements, 

rather than the reactor opening loss 

requirements, to these PVC reactors. 

The equipment opening loss 

requirements are more appropriate for 

the operating characteristics of the 

prepolymerization reactor vessels and 

do not change the overall VC emission 

control stringency applicable 

prepolymerization reactors. After 

considering the comments on this 

proposed revision, EPA decided to 

promulgate the revision. 

Clarification of Definitions and 

Standards 

Based on the EPA's experience with 

administering the VC standard, several 

provisions of die standard are being 

revised to reduce any ambiguity in their 

implementation. For example, specific 

definitions of "leak," "exhaust gas," and 

"relief valve discharge" are being added 

to clarify the applicability of die 

provisions of the standard to each of 

these types of emissions. Similarly, to 

eliminate misunderstandings about the 

application of the standard to 

purification equipment following EDC 

and VC formation, the definitions of 

"EDC purification" and "VC 

purification" are being revised to more 

clearly indicate which equipment is 

subject to the standard. 

Another revision being incorporated 

into the standard makes it clear that the 

10 ppmv standard is a 3-hour average 

emission limit, rather than an 

instantaneous limit. The performance 

test provision in § 61.67(g)(1) has also 

been clarified to specify that test results 

should reflect as close to a 3-hour 

average as practicable. Further, the 10 

ppmv standard regulation is being 

revised to specify that all exhaust gas 

streams are covered by this 

requirement, including control device 

bypass streams. In order to implement 

this clarification, provisions are also 

being incorporated into the standard for 

calculating the VC content in bypassed 

emissions. A final revision to the 10 

ppmv requirement is intended to 

prohibit plants from diluting a VC 

exhaust gas stream with other exhaust 

gases in order to meet the 10 ppmv limit. 

Under the revised standard, combining 

an exhaust stream containing more than 

10 ppmv VC with another gas stream is 

only allowed when the combined stream 

is ducted to a control device. 

The inprocess wastewater 

requirements for gasholder seals are 

also being revised to exclude the 

exposed water seal of gasholders. 

Experience with the VC standard 

indicates that water contained in tiie 

exposed water seal of a gasholder may 

exceed the 10 ppmv limit during normal 

operation and that compliance witii the 

atmospheric exposure limit is not 

practicable for this source. The 

inprocess wastewater stripping 

requirements, however, will continue to 

apply to wastewater after removal from 

the gasholder seal. 

Other Administrative Revisions 

Other administrative revisions to the 

standard include: (1) The elimination of 

the 30-day limit for existing sources to 

submit requests for the use of equivalent 

control measures; (2) a change from 

semiannual to quarterly reporting of VC 

emissions from resin stripping, reactor 

openings, and exhaust gases; and (3) 

allowance of reporting of periods of 

excess emissions instead of all emission 

measurements. 

Summary of Impacts to the Standard 

Revisions to the standard represent 

administrative and clarifying changes; 

no major revisions were proposed. 

Therefore, the environmental, energy 

and economic impacts of the original 

standard remain generally unchanged. A 

summary of the impacts of the original 

standard can be found in the preamble 

to the proposed standard revisions (50 

FR 1182). 

Public Participation 

Prior to proposal of revisions to the 

standard, interested parties were 

advised by public notice in the Federal 

Register (49 FR 26807, June 29,1984) of a 

meeting of the National Air Pollution 

Control Techniques Advisory 

Committee (NAPCTAC) to discuss the 

revisions to the VC standard 

recommended for proposal. This meeting 

was held on August 30,1984. The 

meeting was open to the public and each 

attendee was given an opportunity to 

comment on the revised standard 

recommended for proposal. 

The revised standard was proposed in 

the Federal Register on January 9,1985. 

The public comment period was from 

January 9,1935 to March 25,1985. A 

total of 16 comment letters were 

received. Industry representatives 

submitted most of the comment letters. 

Also commenting were representatives 

of the U.S. Congress, a State Legislature, 

a State air pollution agency and an 

environmental group. The comments 

have been considered carefully and, 

where determined to be appropriate by 

EPA, changes have been made to the 

proposed revisions to the standard. 

Significant Comments Since Proposal 

Most of the comment letters contained 

multiple comments. In general, the 

comments supported die proposed 

administrative and clarifying revisions. 

A detailed discussion cf the comments 

and responses car; be found in the SID 

for the promulgated standard, which is 

referenced in the ADDRESSES section 

of this preamble. The comments and 

responses in the BID serve as the basis 

for the changes that have been made to 

the revised standard between proposal 

and promulgation. 

. Almost all commenters addressed the 

proposed revisions to the relief valve 

discharge standard. Although many cf 

the commenters agreed witii the action 

to reformat the standard, several 

commenters objected tc various aspects 

of the discharge limits. Based on 

consideration of these comments, EPA 

decided not to promulgate the proposed 

revision to the relisf valve discharge 

standard. The comments on this and 

other proposed revisions are addressed 

in detail in the BID for the promulgated 

standard and in summary in the next 

section of this prec.mblc. 

One commenter requssted 

reconsideration of the withdrawal of the 

amendments to ths VC standard which 

were proposed in 1977. This petition for 

reconsideration was based on 

objections to the Agency's use of data 

on costs and economic impacts in the 

decision to withdraw the proposed 

amendments, and to the Agency's 

determination of the technological basis 

of the standard. The commenters stated 

that the EPA's actions in withdrawing 

the proposed amendments were 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

section 112 of the Clean Air Act. As 

discussed further in this preamble, the 

Agency is denying the petition for 

reconsideration. 

Proposed Revisions to Relief Valve 

Discharge Standard 

The EPA has decided not to 

promulgate revisions tc the relief valve 

discharge standard proposed in the 

January 9,1985, Federal Register notice. 

The revisions would have established a 

different type of numerical limit for 

relief valve discharges. The decision to 

retain the original relief valve discharge 

standard was made after considering 

the revisions in light of public comments 

and other findings. Although many 

public comments fsvored the proposed 

revisions, others opposed the change. In 
P.19 

Bgister / Vol. 5'., Nn. :.3S / buasday, September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 

particular, several commenters 

expressed concern that preventable 

relief valve discharges would be 

allowed under the revised standard end 

that the performance allowed undar ths 

revised standard could be inconsistent 

with that allowed under the origin?! 

standard. Other comments expressed 

concern that the revised standard 

included no mechanism for regulating 

very large relief valve discharges. Ths 

basis for the statement that a large 

Agency resource commitment is 

required for enforcing the relief valvs 

discharge standard was also questioned. 

As a result of these comments, EPA 

reviewed the basis for the 

recommendations that led to the 

decision to propose to reformat the 

standard. First, as discussed in the 

Federal Register notice proposing 

revisions to the relief valve discharge 

standard (50 FR 1187), the review of the 

standard conducted between 1980 and 

1982 found that the existing standard 

resulted in a significant commitment c? 

Agency resources to the review and 

evaluation of discharges of VC from 

relief valves. Because the existing 

standard allows only "emergency'" 

discharges of VC from relief valves (i.s., 

the relief valve discharge could not bs 

avoided by taking preventative 

measures), every discharge must be 

evaluated individually to determir.s 

whether the owner or operator of the 

facility has implemented the measures 

necessary to prevent that relief valve 

discharge. During the 4 to 5 years since 

the review study was conducted, the 

enforcement of the relief valve discharge 

standard has been made more efficient. 

This is due in large part to experience 

established in enforcing the standard. 

As a result, EPA enforcement perccnns! 

consider implementation of this 

standard to be much less resource and 

labor intensive. 

A second conclusion from the 1S3C tc 

1982 study was that industry did not 

have a clear understanding of whet ths 

relief valve discharge standard required. 

and what measures they needed tc 

implement in order to comply with tha 

standard. During the 4 to 5 years sines 

the review study, a number of 

enforcement actions have been taker. 

against individual plants for violations 

of the standards. Those actions have 

culminated in consent decrees which 

incorporate requirements for remedial 

actions to prevent further relief valve 

discharges. The provisions of these 

consent decrees have not only reduced 

the number of relief valve discha-gse et 

specific plants, but they have also 

served as guidelines in determining ths 

types of measures appropriate fo:.' 

ribdnbxv:; ths discharges. Because of 

thoss two dsvsiopments, EPA concluded 

that ths original findings of the review 

study are no longer valid and should not 

be- ths basis of E revision to the format 

ci'ihe relvi'valvs discharge standard. 

Ths decision to retain the existing 

re hei'vol .'s bischargs standard as a part 

cf i s Gtr~.do.rd fcr VC emissions is 

further supported by two additional 

advantages that ths existing standard 

b; o over ths prepense revisions. First, 

lbs sxistii", standard provides 

t'-.ai c" preventable relief valve 

cb'acliErgen a.re subject to enforcement 

ection. bbb.de:.' i s proposed revisions, 

wbich would havs -.bowed a small 

numbs!' ci' discharge." psr year whether 

preventable cr not, it io possible that a 

plant could experience preventable 

discharges -'.nd still hs in compliance 

with ihe standard. Ao pointed out in 

public sc:r.rnsnts, it is theoretically 

possible thai dischs'gss resulting from 

g'-oco r-svger.ss could go unpenalized 

undo:, tbe revisions tc the standard. The 

'J.?A did : :o; intend this effect in the 

proposed, revisions, "he retention of the 

s.uBbr.g robe:: valvs diocharge standard 

allows bb-"A to ecnnbius the current 

onicrssiTisnt approach. 

Sscor.d, tbe existing relief valve 

discharge standard provides a better 

nscharbsir. for regulating large relief 

valvs discharges. The proposed revision 

would havs allowed a certain number of 

rslisf valvs dischargss per year, without 

regard to tbo size or duration of the 

discharge, dfonssqusntiy, as long as the 

32S33 ' re within the 

numsrioal limits of ths proposed 

revisions tc tbo standard, there were no 

mechanisms in ths standard to enforce 

control ell 'die amount cf VC discharged 

to ths atmosphere. Under the existing 

relief valvs discharge standard, 

bows-vsr, tbe duration and size of the 

discharge ars factors

 ;n determining the 

severity of a. violation of the standard. 

As a 03BV.lt, a. plent owner or operator 

'.'.ED a greater incentivs under the current 

standard for taking aotion to reduce the 

quantity of e discharge. 

In sun: mary, 3?A is not promulgating 

the revisions tc ths relief valve 

discharge standard which were 

proposed in ths January 9,1985, Federal 

!b3g"ots'.' notice. This decision was 

reachsd. after consideration of public 

comments received on the proposal, and 

aftsr a review o:? ths basis for the 

decision tc reformat the standard. 

ireca.uss this rsvisw revealed that the 

bu.rd.sn on Agency resources has 

diminished as sxpsrisnee with the 

implementation of ths standard 

bicrsased, and. that understanding of the 

"rovisioiD of the existing standard on 

the part of industry should be clearer, 

the necessity for revising the format of 

the relief valve discharge standard is no 

longer apparent. The existing standard 

also has the advantages of penalizing all 

preventable relief valve discharges, 

providing better regulation of large 

volume relief valve discharges, and 

promoting continuity in the ongoing 

enforcement of the standard. 

In some instances, it may be possible 

for a plant operator to contain a relief 

valve discharge and to vent it to a 

control device. Where this can be done 

without exceeding the exhaust gas 

emission limit qf 10 ppmv, EPA 

concluded that this approach should be 

encouraged and, therefore, the discharge 

should be exempt from the relief valve 

discharge standard. Venting the 

discharge through a control device can 

result in a 99.9 percent reduction in the 

VC content of the relief valve discharge 

without interfering with the control of 

VC emissions in exhaust gases which 

are also vented through the control 

device. Although compliance with the 10 

ppmv standard would exempt the 

discharge from the relief valve discharge 

standard, exceeding the 10 ppmv 

standard would be considered both a 

violation of the 10 ppmv standard and of 

the relief valve discharge standard. 

Denial of Petition For Reconsideration 

The NRDC and EDF petitioned EPA to 

reconsider the decision to withdraw the 

1977 proposed revisions to the VC 

standard. The criteria for granting such 

a petition are: (1) The petition must be 

based on information that was not and 

could not reasonably have been 

presented during the original 

rulemaking; and (2) the petition must 

provide substantial support for the 

argument that the challenged action 

should be changed. See Denial of 

Petition to Revise NSPS for Stationary 

Gas Turbines, 45 FR 81653 (December 1, 

1980). As described below, this petition 

fails to meet either criterion, and it is 

therefore, denied. 

Consideration of Petition 

The NRDC/EDF petition for 

reconsideration of the withdrawal was 

based on four main premises. First 

NRDC/EDF objected to the EPA's 

announcement of the withdrawal of the 

proposed amendments as a final action, 

without being preceded by a notice which 

proposed the withdrawal and allowed 

for public comment on the action. 

Second, NRDC/EDF objected to the 

influence of cost considerations in the 

decision to withdraw the proposed 

amendment, stating that the balancing 

of costs and benefits in the setting of the 

VC standard is contrary to the 
P.20 

Federal Register /Vol . 51, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations MSD7 

requirements of Section 112 of the Clean 

Air Act. Third, NRDC/EDF took issue 

with what it took to be the EPA's 

assumption that Section 112 of the Clean 

Air Act establishes a requirement that a 

level of control must have been 

"consistently achieved" in the past in 

order to form the basis of the standard. 

Finally. NRDC/EDF stated that the 

EPA's decisions on specific portions of 

the proposed amendments were in 

conflict with the evidence on those 

issues. 

In the first objection, NRDC/EDF state 

that the proposed amendments to the 

1977 VC standard should not be 

withdrawn because no notice of such 

withdrawal had been published and 

there had been no opportunity for public 

comment on the withdrawal. During the 

8 years which have elapsed since the 

proposal of those amendments, there 

has been ample opportunity afforded for 

public comment and input on the 

amendments and their withdrawal. The 

amendments, their protential 

consequences, and the decisions that the 

Agency might take with regard to them 

were all before the public. Specifically, 

NRDC and EDF received draft 

documents relating to the rulemaking 

distributed prior to the NAPCTAC 

meeting. Finally, NRDC did not give any 

supporting rationale for believing that 

further opportunity for comment would 

yield any relevant new information or 

arguments. Therefore, EPA does not 

believe that additional time or provision 

for receiving further public comments 

could have been either necessary or 

helpful for the resolution of the issues 

involving the proposed amendments to 

the VC standard. 

The second issue raised by NRDC/ 

EDF involves the inclusion of cost 

consideration in the EPA's rulemaking 

deliberations under Section 112. The 

NRDC/EDF maintains that the language 

of Section 112 which requires the 

standard to be set at a level which 

provides an "ample margin of safety" to 

the public precludes consideration of the 

costs of control. In the EPA's judgment, 

the VC standard protects the public 

health with an ample margin of safety 

within the meaning of Section 112, and 

EPA may consider cost and feasiblity in 

setting the standard. The EPA views 

were explained in the 1975-76 VC 

rulemaking. The NRDC/EDF provided 

no new information on this issue. 

The NRDC/EDF's third objection was 

the EPA was incorrect in stating that a 

level of control must be "consistently 

achieved" in order to form the basis of 

the standard. Specifically, NRDC/EDF 

pointed to the language in the Federal 

Register notice that "10 ppmv represents 

the lowest level of control which has 

been consistently achieved" as 

indicating that EPA was applying such 

requirement in evaluating alternative 

exhaust gas requirements. However, the 

basis for EPA's selection of 10 ppmv as 

the VC standard for exhaust gas 

emissions is that this level of control is 

the lowest achievable emission limit 

attainable on a never-to-be-exceeded 

basis. Although 5 ppmv may be 

achieved by some systems over a 

limited time period, the existing data 

indicate the this level of control cannot 

be maintained over a long-term, neverto-be-exceeded basis, as required by the 

standards. In addition to being 

achievable on a consistent, long-term 

basis, the 10 ppmv standard was also 

determined by EPA to provide the public 

with the ample margin of safety required 

by section 112. Therefore, EPA beleives 

that the standard satisfies the 

requirements of section 112. 

The final points raised by NRDC/EDF 

in support of the petition for 

reconsideration addressed three specific 

provisions of the proposed amendments 

which were withdrawn. The NRDC/EDF 

stated that the withdrawal of these 

provisions was in conflict with the 

evidence before the Agency. The first 

specific portion of the standard 

addressed in the petition is the 

withdrawal of the proposed 5 ppmv 

emission limit for exhaust gas emission 

in favor of the existing 10 ppmv 

emission limit. The NRDC/EDF stated 

that the evidence in the record supports 

a finding that the 5 ppmv limit is 

achievable by new sources, and by 

existing sources within 3 years of 

promulgation. The petition also pointed 

to the more stringent emission limit not 

be foregone. 

The EPA decided to maintain the 10 

ppmv emission limit for exhaust gas 

emission for three primary reasons. 

First, as stated above, the 10 ppmv 

emission limit has been determined to 

be consistently achievable by industry, 

whereas the 5 ppmv emission limit 

cannot be consistently achieved. 

Second, even though the limit on 

maximum emissions of VC is set at 10 

ppmv, the average and most short-term 

emissions will be considerably lower 

than this level. Third, lowering the 

emission limit on maximum emission 

rates to 5 ppmv would not significantly 

reduce the average emissions, and 

therefore, adopting the lower standard 

was determined by the Agency not to 

have a significant impact on emissions 

of VC or, accordingly, on public health 

risks. The petition for reconsideration 

presented no new evidence relevant to 

the Agency's decision to withdraw the 

proposed 5 ppmv emission limit. 

The second decision addressed by the 

petition for reconsideration as 

conflicting with the considered evidence 

is the withdrawal of the 5 ppmv 

emission limit for oxychlorination vents. 

The petition points to a statement in the 

1977 proposal that this emission limit 

could be attained based on the use of 

oxygen as a feed material rather than 

air, and maintains that no discussion or 

evidence were presented which would 

justify withdrawal of this proposal. 

In the Federal Register (50 FR 1185), 

evidence was presented by the Agency 

supporting the conclusion that more 

stringent control of emissions from 

oxychlorination vents was unnecessary. 

First, no new technological controls 

have been developed which are 

applicable to these vents. Second, the 

costs of incinerating oxychlorination 

vent streams were reevaluated and 

determined, as before, to be 

unreasonable compared to the small 

reduction in VC emissions. And finally, 

with the possible exception of one plant, 

no new EDC/VC plants with 

oxychlorination reactors are expected to 

be constructed, and any that may be 

constructed will be adequately regulated 

by the requirements of new source 

review regulations. No new information 

was presented in the petition for 

reconsideration relevant to the decision 

• to retain the existing oxychlorination 

vent standard. 

The third decision which was 

addressed in the petition for 

reconsideration as conflicting with the 

considered evidence is the withdrawal 

of the proposal to lower the residual VC 

limit for new dispersion resins from 

2,000 ppmv to 500 ppmv, and the limit 

for other new resins from 400 ppmv to 

100 ppmv. The petition states that 

existing facilities are currently meeting 

the lower limits, and that both new and 

existing facilities could be brought into 

compliance with the more stringent 

limits by using the equipment and 

procedures currently used by the leading 

facilities. 

The EPA withdrew the proposed more 

stringent stripping level requirements for 

two main reasons. The first is that the 

nature of PVC production makes it 

difficult to distinguish "new" from "old" 

resins. Resin compositions are adjusted 

routinely, and completely "new" resins 

are rarely, if ever, made. Second, EPA 

concluded that there is no improved 

technology which would provide the 

basis for more stringent stripping 

requirements for all resins. The 

technologies which are effective for 

specific resins may not be effective for 
P.21 

34SS3B eglstsi I Vc 

other resins. The consequence of 

establishing a more stringent standard 

would be that certain hard-to-strip 

resins could no longer be produced, ir. 

the EPA's opinion, such a result would 

be an unwarranted economic impact 

which is unnecessary to provide an 

ample margin of safety for public hselth. 

No new relevant information was 

presented in the petition for 

reconsideration. 

Administrative 

The docket is an organized and 

complete file of all the information 

considered by EPA in the development 

of this rulemaking. The docket is a 

dynamic file, since material is added 

throughout the rulemaking development. 

The docketing system is intended to 

allow members of the public and 

industries involved to identify and 

locate documents so that they can 

effectively participate in the rulemaking 

process. Along with the statement of 

basis and purpose of the proposed and 

promulgated standards and EPA 

responses to significant comments, ths 

contents of the docket, except for 

interagency review materials, will serve 

as the record in case of judicial review 

[section 307(d)(7)(A)]. 

The effective date of these revisions is 

September 30,1988. Section 112 of the 

Clean Air Act provides that nationai 

emission standards for hazardous sir 

pollutants become effective upon 

promulgation and apply to all existing 

and new sources. 

As prescribed by section 112, 

promulgation of this standard was 

preceded by the Administrator's listing 

of VC under section 112 of the Act cn 

December 24,1975 (40 FR 59477). Zn 

accordance with section 117 of the Act, 

publication of these promulgated 

revisions was preceded by consultation 

with appropriate advisory committoss, 

independent experts, and Federal 

departments and agencies. 

Information collection requirements 

associated with this revised regulation 

(those included in 4C CFR Part SI, 

Subpart A and Subpart F) have been 

approved by the Office of Managsmsnt 

and Budget (OMB) under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1EEC, 

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and have beer, 

assigned OMB control number 01S3. Ths 

revised standard is estimated to result 

in a paperwork burden of about 35 

person-years which is roughly ths sams 

as the original standard. 

Under Executive Order 12291, S?A is 

required to judge whether a regulation :'o 

a "major rule" and therefore subject to 

certain requirements of the Ordsr. Ths 

EPA has determined that the revised 

regulation would result in nons of the 

a-!-,,. 

Ssct 

find 

Tne 

osr; 

c o r 

oba: 

less 

OOO: 

pric 

star 

aov: 

smp 

:nrt: 

mar 

rule. 

: "30 eeenem'o sfhbets sat forth in 

fon ' o ' tbe Crds^ as grounds for 

rg a regulation to be a "major rule." 

revise..: regulation ir. not major 

use: [Z] bb'.tionwids annual 

dia::c:: ,:s::t3, inc'ubfog capital 

gss revv y from tbe standard total 

tbau gvtn viih'cr; [Z] the standard 

no. or.•;-.:. a r^ajor increase in 

:s rr o: odvotfor. acs":v, and (3) the 

bards :b; net cause s'gnificant 

•se efforts on dcrnsr.Mc competition, 

oyver:, vvostrent, productivity, 

raver o. oo noet'tio i in foreign 

tsts. Tre Zl-A bes submitted this 

•nabing to Z-Y3 under Executive 

Crdsr'KSV 

r

r'~r, rs.,,-.. „r „.,. 

---} -*0{j_!J •:.,„., 

adverse revet s 

•••IV' 

spe:::fio;b!y 

btsguistory: 

instances w 

are nossibb 

imnrets, a begv'utcry "Flexibility 

Analysis 1 = 

Exr'biiity Act of 1980 

tification of potentially 

of Federal regulations 

-.ess entities. The Act 

iiras ths oompletion of a 

ihility Analysis in those 

small business impacts 

~auso thin revised 

s no advarse economic 

' ! • 

rncact :r- a 

onbres. 

been conducted. 

e provisions of 5 U.S.C. 

sertify Chat the proposed 

e a significant economic 

Uentia! number of small 

Air PL 

rnr.enc. 

AcJin:nis'~j".!< 

cr"'b. Tib ' *' ' 

bvb .bbb'ibb.' 

rircrmble.T: 

i(K 

l£ I bLVjebey, September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 

product containing vinyl chloride or 

polyvinyl chloride but which has not 

been discharged to a wastewater 

treatment process or discharged 

untreated as wastewater. Gasholder 

seal water is not inprocess wastewater 

until it is removed from the gasholder 

* * * * * 

(1) "In vinyl chloride service" means 

that a piece of equipment either contains 

or contacts a liquid that is a least 10 

percent vinyl chloride by weight or a gas 

that is at least 10 percent by volume 

vinyl chloride as determined according 

to the provisions of § 61.67(h). The 

provisions of § 61.67(h) also specify how 

to determine that a piece of equipment is 

not in vinyl chloride service. For the 

purposes of this subpart, this definition 

must be used in place of the definition of 

"in VHAP service" in Subpart V of this 

part. 

* * * * * 

(o) "Ethylene dichloride purification" 

includes any part of the process of 

ethylene dichloride production which 

follows ethylene dichloride formation, 

excluding product storage following the 

final finishing column. 

(p) "Vinyl chloride purification" 

incudes any part of the process of vinyl 

chloride production which follows vinyl 

chloride formation. 

4 ft ft ft ft 

(v) "Relief valve" means each 

pressure relief device including pressure 

relief valves, rupture disks and other 

pressure relief systems used to protect 

process components from overpressure 

conditions. "Relief valve" does not 

include polymerization shortstop 

systems, referigerated water systems or 

control valves or other devices used to 

control flow to an incinerator or other 

air pollution control device. 

(w) "Leak" means any of several 

events that indicate interruption of 

confinement of vinyl chloride within 

process equipment. Leaks include events 

regulated under Subpart V of this part 

such as: (1) An instrument reading of 

10,000 ppm or greater measure according 

to Method 21 (see Appendix A of 40 CFR 

Part 60); (2) indications of liquid 

dripping; (3) a sensor detection of failure 

of a seal system, failure of a barrier fluid 

system, or both; and (4) detectable 

emissions as indicated by an instrument 

reading of greater than 500 ppm above 

background for equipment designated 

for no detectable emissions measured 

according to Test Method 21 (see 

Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 60). Leaks 

also include events regulated under 

§ 61.65(b)(8)(i) for detection of ambient 

concentrations in excess of background 

•:r,Cs:'::. Cl Tbb.l Part SI. 

nor. control, Asbestos, 

rylliurn, Hazardous 

bereury. Vinyl chloride. 

'eirfcr 24, ""3 . 

C.kri A'-Av 

/-J15!, 74K-, / " 

?,. Ssetior. 

revising par1; 

andby addii 

(y), and (a] t: 

b'b'"!S.TbY,' TTS 

b bbbb [1AHAP3000S MR 

reu s est forth in the 

: C7bi 'Pnt 3" is amended as 

rerity citation for Part 61 

: read ao follows: 

Irsn. :C1, "2 . '.14,116, 301, 

r.3 r.mardcd ;«2 U.S.C. 7401, 

2'..SI is a—ended by 

raphs Q, ;i), (o) and (p) 

paragraphs (v), (w), (x), 

*ead as follows: 

w i r vinyl ob 

s wastewater" means any 

bving vrnufacturing or 

res into direct contact 

:r!d.s o' polyvinyl chloride 

tbe production or use of 

bb, intermediate product, 

ot, by-product, or waste 
P.22 

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 34909 

concentration. A relief valve discharge 

is not a leak. 

(x) "Exhaust gas" means any offgas 

(the constituents of which may consist 

of any fluids, either as a liquid and/or 

.gas) discharged directly or ultimately to 

the atmosphere that was initially 

contained in or was in direct contact 

with the equipment for which exhaust 

gas limits are prescribed in § 61.62 (a) 

and (b); § 61.63(a); § 61.64 (a)(1), (a)(2), 

(b), (c), and (d); § 61.65(b) (l)(ii). (b)(2), 

(b)(5), (b)(6)(ii) and (b)(9)(h). 

(y) "Relief valve discharge" means 

any nonleak discharge through a relief 

valve. "Relief valve discharge" does not 

include discharges ducted to a control 

system from which the concentration of 

vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does 

not exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour 

period), or equivalent as provided in 

§ 61.66. 

(z) "3-hour period" means any three 

consecutive 1-hour periods (each hour 

commencing on the hour). 

3. Section 61.62 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 61.62 Emission standard for ethylene 

dichloride plants. 

(a) Ethylene dichloride purification. 

The concentration of vinyl chloride in 

each exhaust gas stream from any 

equipment used in ethylene dichloride 

purification is not to exceed 10 ppm 

(average for 3-hour period), except as 

provided in § 61.65(a). This requirement 

does not preclude combining of exhaust 

gas streams provided the combined 

steam is ducted through a control 

system from which the concentration of 

vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does 

not exceed 10 ppm, or equivalent as 

provided in § 61.66. This requirement 

does not apply to equipment that has 

been opened, is out of operation, and 

met the requirement in § 61.65(b)(6)(i) 

before being opened. 

(b) Oxychlorination reactor. Except as 

provided in § 61.65(a), emissions of vinyl 

chloride to the atmosphere from each 

oxychlorination reactor are not to 

exceed 0.2 g/kg (0.0002 lb/lb) (average 

for 3-hour period) of the 100 percent 

ethylene dichloride product from the 

oxychlorination process. 

4. Section 61.63 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 61.63 Emission standard for vinvl 

chloride plants. 

An owner or operator of a vinyl 

chloride plant shall comply with the 

requirements of this section and § 61.65. 

(a) Vinyl chloride formation and 

purification: The concentration of vinyl 

chloride in each exhaust gas stream 

from any equipment used in vinyl 

chloride formation and/or purification is 

not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour 

period), except as provided in § 61.65(a). 

This requirement does not preclude 

combining of exhaust gas streams 

provided the combined steam is ducted 

through a control system from which the 

concentration of vinyl chloride in the 

exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm, 

or equivalent as provided in § 61.66. 

This requirement does not apply to 

equipment that has been opened, is out 

of operation, and met the requirement in 

§ 61.65(b)(6)(i) before being opened. 

5. Section 61.64 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) 

to read as follows: 

§ 61.64 Emission standard for polyvinyl 

chloride plants. 

* ft * ft 4 

(a) Reactor. The following 

requirements apply to reactors: 

(1) The concentration of vinyl chloride 

in each exhaust gas stream from each 

reactor is not to exceed 10 ppm (average 

for 3-hour period), except as provided in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section and 

§ 61.65(a). 

(2) The reactor opening loss from each 

reactor is not to exceed 0.02 g vinyl 

chloride/kg (0.00002 lb vinyl chloride/lb) 

of polyvinyl chloride product, except as 

provided in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) 

of this section, with the product 

determined on a dry solids basis. This 

requirement does not apply to 

prepolymerization reactors in the bulk 

process. This requirement does apply to 

postpolymerization reactors in the bulk 

process, where the product means the 

gross product of prepolymerization and 

postpolymerization. 

(3) Manual vent valve discharge. 

Except for an emergency manual vent 

valve discharge, there is to be no 

discharge to the atmosphere from any 

manual vent valve on a polyvinyl 

chloride reactor in vinyl chloride 

service. An emergency manual vent 

valve discharge means a discharge to 

the atmosphere which could not have 

been avoided by taking measures to 

prevent the discharge. Within 10 days of 

any discharge to the atmosphere from 

any manual vent valve, the owner or 

operator of the source from which the 

discharge occurs shall submit to the 

Administrator a report in writing 

containing information on the source, 

nature and cause of the discharge, the 

date and time of the discharge, the 

approximate total vinyl chloride loss 

during the discharge, the method used 

for determining the vinyl chloride loss 

(the calculation of the vinyl chloride 

loss), the action that was taken to 

prevent the discharge, and measures 

adopted to prevent future discharges. 

(b) Stripper. The concentration of 

vinly chloride in each exhaust gas 

stream from each stripper is not to 

exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour 

period), except as provided in § 61.65(a). 

This requirement does not apply to 

equipment that has been opened, is out 

of operation, and met the 

requiremention § 61.65(b)(6)(i) before 

being opened. 

(c) Mixing, weighing, and holding 

containers. The concentration of vinyl 

chloride in each exhaust gas stream 

from each mixing, weighing, or holding 

container in vinyl chloride service which 

precedes the stripper (or the reactor if 

the plant has no stripper) in the plant 

process flow is not to exceed 10 ppm 

(average for 3-hour period), except as 

provided in § 61.65(a). This requirement 

does not apply to equipment that has 

been opened, is out of operation, and 

met the requirement in § 61.65(b)(6)(i) 

before being opened. 

(d) Monomer recovery system. The 

concentration of vinyl chloride in each 

exhaust gas stream from each monomer 

recovery system is not to exceed 10 ppm 

(average for 3-hour period), except as 

provided in § 61.65(a). This requirement 

does not apply to equipment that has 

been opened, is out of operation, and 

met the requirement in § 81.65(b)(6)(i) 

before being opened. 

« * « « « 

6. By revising paragraph (e) 

introductory text, and adding 

paragraphs (e)(3) and (f) to § 61.64 to 

read as follows: 

§ 61.64 Emission standard for polyvinyl 

chloride plants. 

* « « « « 

(e) Sources following the stripper(s). 

The following requirements apply to 

emissions of vinyl chloride to the 

atmosphere from the combination of all 

sources following the stripper(s) [or the 

reactor(s) if the plant has no stripper(s)] 

in the plant process flow including but 

not limited to, centrifuges, 

concentrators, blend tanks, filters, 

dryers, conveyor air discharges, baggers, 

storage containers, and inprocess 

wastewater, except as provided in 

paragraph (f) of this section: 

(1) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(3) The provisions of this paragraph 

apply at all times including when offspecification or other types of resins are 

made. 

(f) Reactor used as stripper. When a 

nonbulk resin reactor is used as a 

stripper this paragraph may be applied 

in lieu of § 61.64 (a)(2) and (e)(1): 
P.23 

sreii ite? I Vd . 51 IBS / Tussday, September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) Tha weighted average emission:; of 

vinyl chloride from reactor opening loss 

and all sources following the reactor 

used as a stripper from all gradss of 

polyvinyl chloride resin stripped in tbs 

reactor on each calendar day may ret 

exceed: 

(i) 2.02 g/kg (0.00202 lb/lb) of 

polyvinyl chloride product for dispersion 

polyvinyl chlorids resins, excluding 

latex resins, with the product 

determined on a dry solids basis. 

(ii) 0.42 g/kg (0.00042 lb/lb) of 

polyvinyl chloride product for all other 

polyvinyl chloride resins, including Iatsx 

resins, with the product determined on a 

dry solids basis. 

7. Section 61.85 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1)(h) End 

(b)(2) to read as follows: 

§61.65 Emission otarifed! for ottsylons 

dichloride, vinyl cf!!ori«2s, end poljfv'.nyt 

chloride plants. 

(a) Relief valve discharge. Except for 

an emergency relief discharge, there i3 

to be no discharge to the atmosphere 

from any relief valve on any equipment 

in vinyl chloride service. An emergency 

relief discharge means a discharge 

which could not have been avoided by 

taking measures to prevent the 

discharge. Within 10 days of any relief 

valve discharge, the owner or operator 

of the source from which the relief valvs 

discharge occurs shall submit to dis 

Administrator a report in writing 

containing information on the source, 

nature and cause of the discharga, the 

date and time of the discharge, the 

approximate total vinyl chloride loss 

during the discharge, the method ussd 

for determining ths vinyl chloride loss 

(the calculation of the vinyl chloride 

loss), the action that was taken to 

prevent the discharge, and measures 

adopted to prevent future discharges. 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(ii) Any vinyl chloride removed from a 

loading or unloading line in accordance 

with paragraph (b)(l)(i) of this section is 

to be ducted through a control system 

from which the concentration of vinyl 

chloride in the exhaust gases does net 

exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour 

period), or equivalent as provided in 

§ 61.66. 

(2) Slip gauges. During loading or 

unloading operations, the vinyl chlorids 

emissions from each slip gauge in vinyl 

chloride service are to be minimized by 

ducting any vinyl chloride discharged 

from the slip gauge through a control 

system from which the concentration cf 

vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases doss 

not exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour 

psiicd], or equivalent as provided in 

i: 31.53. 

i: 0 ft tt 

G. by re rising paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4), 

(bp), y){Z], [j]j), (b](8), (b)(9)(h), and 

[e] to g J1.C5 as follows: 

zrd for ethylene 

cC?b."r,:\uo and polyvinyl : \ 

An owner or operator of an ethylene 

dichlcrids, vinyl chloride, and/or 

polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply 

wilh tbo requirement::- of this section. 

(a) * ' * 

(b] * - * 

(1) * * * 

(3) Lea kegs from pump, compressor, 

and agitator ssals: 

(i] tlatutinn pumps. Vinyl chloride 

Emissions from seals on all rotating 

pumps in vinyl chloride service are to be 

minimized by Installing sealless pumps, 

pumps with double mechanical seals or 

equivalent as provided in § 61.66. If 

doubls mechanical ssals are used, vinyl 

chloride emissions from the seals are to 

bs minimiasd by maintaining the 

pressure betwssn ths two seals so that 

any Isak that occurs is into the pump; by 

ducting any vinyl chloride between the 

two seals through e control system from 

which the concentration of vinyl 

chloride in ths exhaust gases does not 

sxcseci 1Z ppm; or equivalent as 

provided in § 31.33. Compliance with the 

providers of 40 CFIt Part 61 Subpart V 

demonstrates compliance with the 

provisions of this paragraph. 

(ii) Reciprocating pumps. Vinyl 

chlorids omissions from seals on all 

reciprocating pumps in vinyl chloride 

ssrvics are to bs minimized by installing 

doubls outboard ssals, or equivalent as 

provided in §31.33. If double outboard 

ssals aro used, vinyl chloride emissions 

from the ssals are to bs minimized by 

maintaining ths pressure between the 

two ssals so that any leak that occurs is 

into tha pump; by ducting any vinyl 

chloride between ths two seals through 

a control system from which the 

concentration of vinyl chloride in the 

sxhauet gases doss not exceed 10 ppm; 

or equivalent as provided in §61.66. 

Compliance with the provisions of 40 

CFR Part 31 Subpart V demonstrates 

compliances with tho provisions of this 

paragraph. 

(iii) Rotating compressor. Vinyl 

chloride emissions from seals on all 

rotating compressors in vinyl chloride 

service are to bs minimized by installing 

compressors with double mechanical 

seals, or equit'alsnt ss provided in 

§31.53. If double mechanical seals are 

used, vinyl chloride omissions from the 

rais are .o os minimise. 

d b y 

maintaining the pressure between the 

two seals so that any leak that occurs is 

into the compressor; by ducting any 

vinyl chloride between the two seals 

through a control system from which the 

concentration of vinyl chloride in the 

exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm; 

or equivalent as provided in §61.66. 

Compliance with the provisions of 40 

CFR Part 61 Subpart V demonstrates 

compliance with the provisions of this 

paragraph. 

(iv) Reciprocating compressors. Vinyl 

chloride emissions from seals on all 

reciprocating compressors in vinyl 

chloride service are to be minimized by 

installing double outboard seals, or 

equivalent as provided in § 61.66. If 

double outboard seals are used, vinyl 

chloride emissions from the seals are to 

be minimized by maintaining the 

pressure between the two seals so that 

any leak that occurs is into the 

compressor; by ducting any vinyl 

chloride between the two seals through 

a control system from which 

concentration of vinyl chloride in the 

exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm; 

or equivalent as provided in § 61.66. 

Compliance with the provisions of 40 

CFR Part 61 Subpart V demonstrates 

compliance with the provisions of this 

paragraph. 

(v) Agitator. Vinyl chloride emissions 

from seals on all agitators in vinyl 

chloride service are to be minimized by 

installing agitators with double 

mechanical seals, or equivalent as 

provided in § 61.66. If double 

mechanical seals are used, vinyl 

chloride emissions from the seals are to 

be minimized by maintaining the 

pressure between the two seals so that 

any leak that occurs is into the agitated 

vessel; by ducting any vinyl chloride 

between the two seals through a control 

system from which the concentration of 

vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does 

not exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as 

provided in § 61.66. 

(4) Z,eoAs from relief valves. Vinyl 

chloride emissions due to leaks from 

each relief valve on equipment in vinyl 

chloride service shall comply with 

§ 61.242-4 of Subpart V of this part. 

(5) Manual venting of gases. Except as 

provided in § 61.64(a)(3), all gases which 

are manually vented from equipment in 

vinly chloride service are to be ducted 

through a control system from which the 

concentration of vinyl chloride in the 

exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm 

(average for 3-hour period); or 

equivalent as provided in § 61.66. 

(6) Opening of equipment. Vinyl 

chloride emissions from opening of 

equipment (including prepolymerization 

reactors used in the manufacture of bulk 
P.24 

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 189 / Tuesday. September 30, 198S / Rules and Regulations 24911 

resins and loading or unloading lines 

that are not opened to the atmosphere 

after each loading or unloading 

operation) are to be minimized as 

follows: 

(i) Before opening any equipment for 

any reason, the quantity of vinyl 

chloride which is contained therein is to 

be reduced to an amount which occupies 

a volume of no more than 2.0 percent of 

the equipment's containment volume or 

0.0950 cubic meters (25 gallons), 

whichever is larger, at standard 

temperature and pressure. 

(ii) Any vinyl chloride removed from 

the equipment in accordance with 

paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section is to be 

ducted through a control system from 

which the concentration of vinyl 

chloride in the exhaust gases does not 

exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour 

period); or equivalent as provided in 

§ 61.66. 

(7) Samples. Unused portions of 

samples containing at least 10 percent 

by weight vinyl chloride are to be 

returned to the process or destroyed in a 

control device from which concentration 

of vinyl chloride in the exhaust gas does 

not exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour 

period) or equivalent as provided in 

§ 61.66. Sampling techniques are to be 

such that sample containers in vinyl 

chloride service are purged into a closed 

process system. Compliance with the 

provisions of 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart V 

demonstrates compliance with the 

provisions of this paragraph. 

(8) Leak detection and elimination. 

Vinyl chloride emissions due to leaks 

from equipment in vinyl chloride service 

are to be minimized as follows: 

(i) A reliable and accurate vinyl 

chloride monitoring system shall be 

operated for detection of major leaks 

and identification of the general area of 

the plant where a leak is located. A 

vinyl chloride monitoring system means 

a device which obtains air samples from 

one or more points on a continuous 

sequential basis and analyzes the 

samples with gas chromatography or, if 

the owner or operator assumes that all 

hydrocarbons measured are vinyl 

chloride, with infrared 

spectrophotometry, flame ion detection, 

or an equivalent or alternative method. 

The vinyl chloride monitoring system 

shall be operated according to a 

program developed by the plant owner 

or operator. The owner or operator shall 

submit a description of the program to 

the Administrator within 45 days of the 

effective date of these regulations, 

unless a waiver of compliance is granted 

under § 61.11, or the program has been 

approved and the Administrator does 

not request a review of the program. 

Approval of a program will be granted 

by the Administrator provided he finds: 

(A) The location and number of points 

to be monitored and ths frequency of 

monitoring provided for in the program 

are acceptable when they are compared 

with the number of pieces of equipment 

in vinyl chloride service and size and 

physical layout of the plant. 

(B) It contains a definition of leak 

which is acceptable when compared 

with the background concentrations of 

vinyl chloride in the areas of the plant to 

be monitored by the vinyl chloride 

monitoring system. Measurements of 

background concentrations of vinyl 

chloride in the areas of the plant to be 

monitored by the vinyl chloride 

monitoring system are to be included 

with the description of the program. The 

definition of leak for a given plant may 

vary among the different areas within 

the plant and is also to change over tim3 

as background concentrations in the 

plant are reduced. 

(C) It contains an acceptable plan of 

action to be taken when a leak is 

detected. 

(D) It provides for an acceptable 

calibration and maintenance schedule 

for the vinyl chloride monitoring system 

and portable hydrocarbon detector. For 

the vinyl chloride monitoring system, a 

daily span check is to be conducted with 

a concentration of vinyl chloride equal 

to the concentration defined as a leak 

according to paragraph (b)(8)(i)(B) of 

this section. The calibration is to be 

done with either: 

(7) A calibration gas mixture prepared 

from the gases specified in sections 

5.2.1. and 5.2.2. of Test Method 108 and 

in accordance with section 7.1 of Test 

Method 103, or 

[2] A calibration gas cylinder 

standard containing the appropriate 

concentration of vinyl chloride. The gas 

composition of the calibration gas 

cylinder standard is to have been 

certified by the manufacturer. The 

manufacturer must have recommended a 

maximum shelf life for each cylinder so 

that the concentration does not change 

greater than ± 5 percent from the 

certified value. The date of gas cylinder 

preparation, certified vinyl chloride 

concentration, and recommended 

maximum self life must have been 

affixed to the cylinder before shipment 

from the manufacturer to the buyer. If a 

gas chromatograph is used as the vinyl 

chloride monitoring system, these gas 

mixtures may be directly used to 

prepare a chromatograph calibration 

curve as described in section 7.3 of Test 

Method 108. The requirements in section 

5.2.3.1. and 5.2.3.2. of Test Method 106 

for certification of cylinder standards 

and for establishment and verification of 

calibration standards are to be followed, 

(ii) For each process unit subject to 

this subpart, a formal leak detection and 

repair program shall be implemented 

consistent with Subpart V of this part, 

except as provided in paragraph 

(b)(8)(iii) of this section. This program is 

to be implemented within 90 days of the 

effective date of these regulations, 

unless a waiver of complienoe is granted 

under §61.11. Except as provided in 

paragraph (b)(8)(ii)(E) of this section, an 

owner or operator shall be exempt from 

§ 61.242-l(d), § 61.242-7 (a), (b), end (c)„ 

§ 61.246, and § 61.247 of Subpart V of 

this part for any process unit in which 

the percentage of leaking valves is 

demonstrated to be less thsin 2S. 

percent, as determine'd in accordance 

with the following: 

(A) A performance test as specified in 

paragraph (b)(8)(ii)(B) of this section 

shall be conducted initially within 90 

days of the effective date of these 

regulations, annually, and at timss .; 

requested by the Administrator. 

(B) For each performance test, a i 

minimum of 200 or 90 percent, 

whichever is less, of the total valves in 

VOC service (as defined in § 60.481 of 

Subpart VV of Part 60) within ths 

process unit shall be randomly selected 

and monitored within 1 week by the 

methods specified in § 61.245(b) cf this 

part. If an instrument reading of lOvOOO 

ppm or greater is measured, a leak is 

detected. The leak percentage shall be 

determined by dividing ths number of 

valves in VOC service for which leaks 

are detected by the number of tested 

valves in VOC service, 

(C) If a leak is detected, it shdL be 

repaired in accordance with Q fil.242-7 

(d) and (e) of Subpart V of this part. 

(D) The results of tho performance tesJ 

shall be submitted in writing to the 

Administrator in the first quarterly ! 

report following the performance tost as 

part of the reporting requirements of . 

§ 61 JO. ! 

(E) Any process unit in ivhich ths ] 

percentage of leaking valvss is found to • 

be greater than 2.0 percent according to 

the performance test prescribed in 

paragraph (b)(8)(ii)(B) of this section 

must comply with all provisions of 

Subpart V of this part within 90 days. 

(iii) Open-ended valves or lines 

located on multiple service process lines 

which operate in vinyl chloride service 

less than 10 percent of the time are 

exempt from the requirements of 

§ 61.242-6 of Subpart V, provided the 

open-ended valves or lines are 

addressed in uhe monitoring system 

required by paragraph (b)(8)(i) of this ' 

section. The Administrator may apply 
sgisteir / Vol. 51, Nc. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 

this exemption to other existing openended valves or lines that are 

demonstrated to require significant 

retrofit cost to comply with ths 

requirements of § 61.242-6 of Subpart V. 

ft ft * li ir 

(9) * * * 

(ii) Any vinyl chloride removed from 

the inprocess wastewater in accordance 

with paragraph (b)(9)(i) of this section is 

to be ducted through a control system 

from which the concentration of vinyl 

chloride in the exhaust gases doss not 

exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour 

period); or equivalent as provided in 

§ 61.66. 

tt tt t, n tt 

(c) The requirements in paragraphs 

(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(6), {b){7} and 

(b)(8) of this section are to be 

incorporated into a standard operating 

procedure, and made available upon 

request for inspection by the 

Administrator. The standard operating 

procedure is to include provisions for 

measuring the vinyl chlorids in 

equipment 4.75 m3 (1,250 gal) in volume 

for which an emission limit is prescribed 

in § 61.65(b)(6)(i) after opening the 

equipment and using Test Method 103, e 

portable hydrocarbon detector, or cn 

alternative method. The method of 

measurement is to meet the 

requirements in § 61.67(g)(5](i)(A) or 

(g)(5)(i)(B). 

9. Section 61.66 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 81.SS Equivalent Gqaiipjr.ozrt and 

procedures. 

Upon written application from an 

owner or operator, the Administrator 

may approve use of equipment or 

procedures which have been 

demonstrated to his satisfaction to be 

equivalent in terms of reducing vinyl 

chloride emissions to the atmosphere to 

those prescribed for compliance with s. 

specific paragraph of this subpart. 

10. By revising paragraohs (f), (g)(l)(i), 

(g)(2), (g)(3) introductory text, (g)(3](i). 

(g)(3)(iii), (g)(5) introductory text, and by 

(g)(5)(ii) adding paragraphs (g)(6) and (hj 

in § 61.67 as follows: 

§ S1.S7 (Emission tests. 

* a ti & ti 

(f) The owner or operator shall retain 

at the plant and make available, upon 

request, for inspection by ths 

Administrator, for a minimum of 3 years, 

records of emission test results and 

other data needed to determine 

emissions. 

(g) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) For each run, one sample is tc be 

collected. The sampling site is to bs et 

least two stack or duct diamstsrs 

downstream and one half diameter 

upstream from any flow disturbance 

such as a bend, expansion, contraction, 

or visible flame. For a rectangular cross 

section an equivalent diameter is to be 

determined from the following equation: 

equivalent diameter=2 (length) (width)/ 

length-f width 

The sampling point in the duct is to be at 

the csntroid of the cross section. The 

sample is to be extracted at a rate 

proportional to the gas velocity at the 

sampling point. The sample is to contain 

a minimum volume of 50 liters corrected 

to standard conditions and is to be 

taken over a period as close to 1 hour as 

practicable. 

ft it ii ft ft 

(2) Test Method 107 or Method 601 

(incorporated by reference as specified 

in § 31.13) is to be used to determine the 

concsntration of vinyl chloride in each 

inprocess wastewater stream for which 

en emission limit is prescribed in 

i) 61.S5(b)(9)(i). 

(3) When a stripping operation is used 

to attain the emission limits in § 61.64 

(s) and (f), emissions are to be 

determined using Test Method 107 as 

follows: 

(i) Ths number of strippers (or 

reactors ussd as strippers) and samples 

end the typss and grades of resin to be 

samplsd. are to be determined by the 

Administrator for each individual plant 

at ths tims of the test based on the 

plant's onsration. 

(ii)" *' ° 

(iii) The corresponding quantity of 

material processed by each stripper (or 

reactor used as a stripper) is to be 

determined on a dry solids basis and by 

a method submitted to and approved by 

the Administrator. 

(iv) " * " 

(4) * * ° 

(5) The reactor opening loss for which 

an emission limit is prescribed in 

§ 31.64(a)(2) is to be determined. The 

number of reactors for which the 

determination is to be made is to be 

specified by the Administrator for each 

individual plant at the time of the 

determination based on the plant's 

onsration. 

jq a * ., 

(ii) A calculation based on the number 

of evacuations, the vacuum involved, 

and ths volume of gas in the reactor is 

hereby approved by the Administrator 

as an alternative method for 

determining reactor opening loss for 

postpolymsrization reactors in the 

manufacture of bulk resins. Calculation 

methods bassd on techniques other than 

repeated evacuation of the reactor may 

bs approved by the Administrator for 

determining reactor opening loss for 

postpolymerization reactors in the 

manufacture of bulk resins. 

(6) For a reactor that is used as a 

stripper, the emissions of vinyl chloride 

from reactor opening loss and all 

sources following the reactor used as a 

stripper for which an emission limit is 

prescribed in § 61.64(f) are to be 

determined. The number of reactors for 

which the determination is to be made is 

to be specified by the Administrator for 

each individual plant at the time of the 

determination based on the plant's 

operation. 

(i) For each batch stripped in the 

reactor, the following measurements are 

to be made: 

(A) The concentration (ppm) of vinyl 

chloride in resin after stripping, 

measured according to paragraph (g)(3) 

of this section; 

(B) The reactor vacuum (mm Hg) at 

end of strip from plant instrument; and 

(C) The reactor temperature (°C) at 

end of strip from plant instrument. 

(ii) For each batch stripped in the 

reactor, the following information is to 

be determined: 

(A) The vapor pressure (mm Hg) of 

water in the reactor at end of strip from 

the following table: 

Reactor 

vapor 

temper* 

ature 

CO 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

SO 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

H,0 

vapor 

pressure 

(mm 

Hg) 

55.3 

58.3 

61.5 

64.8 

68.3 

71.9 

75.6 

79.6 

83.7 

88.0 

92.5 

97.2 

102.1 

107.2 

112.5 

118.0 

123.8 

129.8 

136.1 

142.6 

149.4 

156.4 

Reactor 

temperature 

CO 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

••5 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

82 

63 

H,0 

vapor 

pressure 

(mm 

Hg) 

163.B 

171.4 

179.3 

187.5 

196.1 

205.0 

214.2 

223.7 

233.7 

243.9 

254.6 

265.7 

277.2 

289.1 

301.4 

314.1 

327.3 

341.0 

355.1 

369.7 

384.9 

400.6 

Reactor 

temper* 

aturo 

CO 

84 

85 

66 

87 

68 

89 

90 

91 

02 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 

100 

H,0 

sure 

(mm 

Hg) 

4168 

4336 

450.9 

468.7 

487.1 

506.1 

525.8 

546.0 

567.0 

588.6 

610.9 

633.9 

657.6 

682.1 

707.3 

733.2 

760.0 

(B) The partial pressure (mm Hg) of 

vinyl chloride in reactor at end of strip 

from the following equation: 

PPVC= 760-RV-VPW 

where: 

PPVC = partial pressure of vinyl chloride, in 

mm Hg 

760=atmospheric pressure at 0 *C, in mm Hg 

RV = absolute value of reactor vacuum, in 

mm Hg 

VPW=vapor pressure of water, in mm Hg 

(C) The reactor vapor space volume 

(m3) at end of strip from the following 

equation: 
P.26 

Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 189 / Tuesday. September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 34913 

RVSV=RC-WV- -

PVCW 

1,400 

where: 

RVSV=reactor vapor space volume, in ms 

RC=reactor capacity, in m3 

WV=volume of water in reactor from recipe, 

in m3 

PVCW=dry weight of polyvinyl chloride in 

reactor from recipe, in kg 

where: 

C=g vinyl chloride/kg polyvinyl chloride 

product 

PPMVC=concentration of vinyl chloride in 

resin after stripping, in ppm 

10"

 3

= conversion factor for ppm 

PPVC=partial pressure of vinyl chloride 

determined according to paragraph 

(g)(6){ii)(B) of this section, in mm Hg 

RVSV=reactor vapor space volume 

determined according to paragraph 

(gX6K-i)(C) of this section, in m3 

l,002 = ideal gas constant in g— 'K/mm 

Hg—m3 for vinyl chloride 

PVCW=dry weight of polyvinyl chloride in 

reactor from recipe, in kg 

273=conversion factor for 'C to 'K 

RT=reactor temperature, in 'C 

(h)(1) Each piece of equipment within 

a process unit that can reasonably 

contain equipment in vinyl chloride 

service is presumed to be in vinyl 

chloride service unless an owner or 

operator demonstrates that the piece of 

equipment is not in vinyl chloride 

service. For a piece of equipment to be 

considered not in vinyl chloride service, 

it must be determined that the percent 

vinyl chloride content can be reasonably 

expected not to exceed 10 percent by 

weight for liquid streams or contained 

liquid volumes and 10 percent by 

volume for gas streams or contained gas 

volumes, which also includes gas 

volumes above liquid streams or 

contained liquid volumes. For purposes 

of determining the percent vinyl chloride 

content of the process fluid that is 

contained in or contacts equipment, 

procedures that conform to the methods 

described in ASTM Method D-2267 

(incorporated by reference as specified 

in § 61.18) shall be used. 

(2)(i) An owner or operator may use 

engineering judgment rather than the 

procedures in paragraph (h)(1) of this 

section to demonstrate that the percent 

vinyl chloride content does not exceed 

10 percent by weight for liquid streams 

and 10 percent by volume for gas 

streams, provided that the engineering 

judgment demonstrates that the vinyl 

1,400=typical density of polyvinyl chloride, 

in kg/m3 

(iii) For each batch stripped in the 

reactor, the combined reactor opening 

loss and emissions from all sources 

following the reactor used as a stripper 

is to be determined using the following 

equation: 

C=(PPMVC)(10-3)+ 

(PPVC)(RVSV)(1,002) 

(PVCW) (273+RT) 

chloride content clearly does not exceed 

10 percent. When an owner or operator 

and the Administrator do not agree on 

whether a piece of equipment is not in 

vinyl chlorids service, however, the 

procedures in paragraph (h)(1) of this 

section shall be used to resolve the 

disagreement. 

(ii) If an owner or operator determines 

that a piace of equipment is in vinyl 

chloride service, the determination can 

be revised only after following the 

procedures in paragraph (h)(1) of this 

section. 

(3) Samples used in determining the 

percent vinyl chloride content shall be 

representative of the process fluid that 

is contained in or contacts the 

equipment. 

11. By adding paragraphs (d), (e) and 

(f) to § 61.68 as follows: 

§ 61.68 Emission monitoring. 

* * * * * 

(d) When exhaust gas(es), having 

emission limits that are subject to the 

requirement of paragraph (a) of this 

section, are emitted to the atmosphere 

without passing through the control 

system and required vinyl chloride 

monitoring system, the vinyl chloride 

content of the emission shall be 

calculated (in units of each applicable 

emission limit) by best practical 

engineering judgment based on the 

discharge duration and known VC 

concentrations in the affected 

equipment as determined in accordance 

with § 61.67(h) or other acceptable 

method. 

(e) For each 3-hour period, the vinyl 

chloride content of emissions subject to 

the requirements of paragraphs (a) and 

(d) of this section shall be averaged 

(weighted according to the proportion of 

time that emissions were continuously 

monitored and that emissions bypassed 

the continuous monitor) for purposes of 

reporting excess emissions under 

§ 61.70(c)(1). 

(f) For each vinyl chloride emission to 

the atmosphere determined in 

accordance with paragraph (e) of this 

section to be in excess of the applicable 

emission limits, the owner or operator 

shall record the identity of the source(s), 

the date, time, and duration of the 

excess emission, the cause of the excess 

emission, and the approximate total 

vinyl chloride loss during the excess 

emission, and the method used for 

determining the vinyl chloride loss. This 

information shall be retained and made 

available for inspection by the 

Administrator as required by § 61.71(a). 

12. In § 61.70 by revising the section 

title from "Semiannual report" to 

"Reporting", and by revising paragraphs 

(a), (c)(1), (c)(2) introductory text! 

(c)(2)(iii), (c)(2)(iv), (c)(2)(v), (c)(2)(vi) 

introductory text, and (e)(3) and also by 

adding (c)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 61.70 Rsportjij:-

(a)(1) The owner or operator of any 

source to which this subpart applies 

shall submit to the Administrator on 

March 15, June 15, September 15, and 

December 15 of each year a report in 

writing containing ths information 

required by thio ssction. The first report 

is to be submittsd following the first full 

3-month reporting period after the initial 

report is submitted. 

(2) In the case of an existing source, 

the approved reporting schedule shall be 

used. In addition, quarterly reports shall 

be submitted exactly 3 months following 

tiie current reporting dates. 

« * e *• a 

(c) * * * 

(1) The owner or operator shall 

include in ths report a record of the 

vinyl chloride content of emissions for 

each 3-hour period during which average 

emissions are in excess of the emission 

limits in § 61.82 (a) or (b). § 61.63(a), or 

§ 61.64 (a)(1), (b), (c), or (d), or during 

which average emissions are in excess 

of the emission limits specified for any 

control system to which reactor 

emissions are required to be ducted in 

§ 61.64(a)(2) or to which fugitive 

emissions are required to be ducted in 

§ 61.65(b)(i)(ii), (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(6)fii). or 

(b)(9)(ii). The number of 3-hour periods 

for which average emissions were 

determined during tha reporting period 

shall be reported. If emissions in excess 

of the emission limits are not detected, 

the report shall contam a statement that 

no excess emissions have been detected. 

The emissions are to be determined in 

accordance with § 61.68(e). 

(2) In polyvinyl chloride plants for 

which a stripping operation is used to 

attain the emission level prescribed in 

§ 61.64(e), the owner or operator shall. j 

1 
34914 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 

include in the report a record of the 

vinyl chloride content in the polyvinyl 

chloride resin. 

(i) * * * 

(ii)* • * 

(iii) The vinyl chloride content in each 

sample is to be determined by Test 

Method 107 as prescribed in 

§ 61.67(g)(3). 

(iv) [Reserved] 

(v) The report to the Administrator by 

the owner or operator is to include a 

n 

2 Pci Ma 

i = l 

Pci Mci + Pcs Mos-f 

QT 

where: 

A=24-hour average concentration of type T 

resin in ppm (dry weight basis) 

Q=Total production of type T resin over the 

24-hour period, in kg. 

T=Type of resin. 

M = Concentration of vinyl chloride in one 

sample of grade Gi resin in ppm. 

P=Production of grade Gi resin represented 

by the sample, in kg. 

Gi = Grade of resin: e.g., GI, G2, G3. 

n=Total number of grades of resin produced 

during the 24-hour period. 

The number of 24-hour average 

concentrations for each resin type 

determined during the reporting period 

shall be reported. If no 24-hour average 

resin vinyl chloride concentrations in 

excess of the limits prescribed in 

§ 61.64(e) are measured, the report shall 

state that no excess resin vinyl chloride 

concentrations were measured. 

(vi) The owner or operator shall retain 

at the source and make available for 

inspection by the Administrator for a 

minimum of 3 years records of all data 

needed to furnish the information 

required by paragraph (c)(2)(v) of this 

section. The records are to contain the 

following information: 

(A)* * * jBj * * <, 

(3) The owner or operator shall 

include in the report a record of any 

emissions from each reactor opening in 

excess of the emission limits prescribed 

in § 61.64(a)(2). Emissions are to be 

determined in accordance with 

§ 61.67(g)(5), except that emissions for 

each reactor are to be determined. The 

number of reactor openings during the 

reporting period shall be reported. If 

emissions in excess of the emission 

limits are not detected, the report shall 

include a statement that excess 

emissions have not been detected. 

(4) In polyvinyl chloride plants for 

which stripping in the reactor is used to 

attain the emission level prescribed in 

record of any 24-hour average resin 

vinyl chloride concentration, as 

determined in this paragraph, in excess 

of ths limits prescribed in § 61.64(e). The 

vinyl chloride content found in each 

sample required by paragraphs (c)(2)(i) 

and (c)(2)(h) of this section shall be 

avsragsd ssparatsly for each type of 

rssin, ovsr sach calendar day and 

weighted according to the quantity of 

each grads of resin processed by the 

stripper(s) that calendar day, according 

tc ths following equation: 

, K o 

§ 61.84(f), ths owner or operator shall 

include in ths report e record of the 

vinyl chlorids emissions from reactor 

opening lose and all sources following 

ths reactor used as a stripper. 

(i) Gns rsprsssntativs sample of 

polyvinyl chlorids resin is to be taken 

from each hatch of each grade of resin 

immediately following the completion of 

ths stripping operation, and identified 

by resin typs and grade and the date 

and time the batch is completed. The 

corresponding quantity of material 

AT= 

2?ciC c l 

Pel Ccl + P{2 C<3 + 

QT 

whera: 

A = 24-hour average combined reactor 

opening loss and emissions from all 

sources following the reactor used as a 

stripper, in g vinyl chloride/kg product 

(dry weight basis). 

Q=Tota! production of resin in batches for 

which stripping is completed during the 

24-hour period, in kg. 

T=Type of resin. 

C=Averega combined reactor opening loss 

and emissions from all sources following 

the reactor used a3 a stripper of all 

batches of grade G| rssin for which 

stripping is completed during the 24-hour 

period, in g vinyl chloride/kg product 

(dry weight basis) (determined according 

to procedure prescribed in § 61.67(g)(6)). 

P=Production of grade G, resin in the 

batches for which C is determined, in kg. 

Gi = Grada of resin e.g., Gi, G-t, and Ga. 

n=Total number of grades of resin in batches 

for which stripping is completed during 

ths 2«3-hour period. 

The number of 24-hour average 

emissions determined during the 

reporting period shall be reported. If no 

24-hour avsrags combined reactor 

opening loss and emissions from all 

processed in each stripper batch is to be 

recorded and identified by resin type 

and grade and the date and time the 

batch is completed. 

(ii) The vinyl chloride content in each 

sample is to be determined by Test 

Method 107 as prescribed in 

§ 61.67(g)(3). 

(iii) The combined emissions from 

reactor opening loss and all sources 

following the reactor used as a stripper 

are to be determined for each batch 

stripped in a reactor according to the 

procedure prescribed in § 61.67(g)(6). 

(iv) The report to the Administrator by 

the owner or operator is to include a 

record of any 24-hour average combined

 l 

reactor opening loss and emissions from 

all sources following the reactor used as 

a stripper as determined in this 

paragraph, in excess of the limits 

prescribed in § 61.64(f). The combined 

reactor opening loss and emissions from 

all sources following the reactor used as 

a stripper associated with each batch 

are to be averaged separately for each 

type of resin, over each calendar day 

and weighted according to the quantity 

of each grade of resin stripped in 

reactors that calendar day as follows: 

For each type of resin (suspension, 

dispersion, latex, bulk, other), the 

following calculation is to be performed: 

+PonCo 

sources following the reactor used a 

stripper in excess of the limits 

prescribed in § 61.64(f) are determined, 

the report shall state that no excess 

vinyl chloride emissions were 

determined. 

11. By revising paragraph (a) 

introductory text of § 61.71 as follows: 

§ 61.71 Recordkeeping. 

(a) The owner or operator of any 

source to which this subpart applies 

shall retain the following information at 

the source and make it available for 

inspection to the Administrator for a 

minimum of 3 years: 

ft ft ft ft A 

14. By revising paragraph (a)(4) and 

adding paragraph (b)(1) to § 61.18 as 

follows: 

§ 61.18 Incorporation by Reference. 

(a) * * * 

(4) ASTM D2267-68 (reapproved 1978) 

Aromatics in Light Naphthas and 
P.28 

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 34915 

Aviation Gasoline by Gas 

Chromatography, IBR approved June 6, 

1984, for § 61.245(d)(1) and IBR approved 

September 30,1986 for § 61.67(h)(1). 

ft ft * * 4 

(b) The following material is available 

from the U.S. EPA Environmental 

Monitoring and Support Laboratory, 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45268. 

(1) Method 601, Test Method for 

Purgeable Halocarbons, July 1982, IBR 

approved September 30,1986 for 

§ 61.67(g)(2). 

15. By revising the definition "volatile 

hazardous air pollutants" in § 61.241 of 

Subpart V to read as follows: 

§61.241 Definitions, 

« * « « A 

"Volatile hazardous air pollutant" or 

"VHAP" means a substance regulated 

under this part for which a standard for 

equipment leaks of the substance has 

been proposed and promulgated. 

Benzene is a VHAP. Vinyl chloride is a 

VHAP. 

16. By revising the definition of 

"connector" in § 61.241 of Subpart V as 

follows: 

§61.241 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

"Connector" means flanged, screwed, 

welded, or other joined fittings used to 

connect two pipe lines or a pipe line and 

a piece of equipment. For the purpose of 

reporting and recordkeeping, connector 

means flanged fittings that are not 

covered by insulation or other materials 

that prevent location of the fittings. 

« * « * « 

(FR Doc. 86-22032 Filed 9-29-88; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M